Oh ya, and I would also like to see in my history not just the score but also the map associated with the scores. It would be cool if I could pick my own display filters like "Display scores by map" or "Display scores by most recent" or "Display scores by number of players in game" - with an average score at the bottom of each filter list.

Then you could see your scoring average by what maps you have played and scoring averaging compared between 2,3,4, and 5 player games to see what you are best at.

However, 4/5 player games are more difficult as there is less predictability and more risk in attempting to make larger numbers of routes... it seems to me winning a 5 player game is more difficult than a 2 player game (assuming relatively equal ranks) - should scoring not reflect this?

I will not discuss here if winning a multiplayer game is harder than winning a 2-player game. One thing I can say is that you actually do get more points for a 5-player game victory than a 2-player game victory, since in the former you win against 4 opponents. Against equally ranked opponents, a 5-player game victory nets you 16 points, whereas a 2-player game victory will only give you 4.

I have a suggestion: Why not DIVIDING the points by the numbers of opponents? In this case in every game the points at stake are 8.

Why? There are some arguments pro (i believe some contra, but this is not my suggestion ):

In a multiplayer game the luck factor is much higher. Especially in TTR it is not really possible to win a multi against opponents ranked nearly as good as you very often.

Even a second place in a 4 or 5 player match may cost you points...

Most top players do not play multiplayer ranked because of the horrendous possibility to lose so many points in ONE game. They need 3 wins in 2 player matches to even the loss (most of the times much more wins). With every match only 8 points at stake, i believe we see some strong players play more multiplayer. They need only one game to even a (complete) loss.

A game is a game! Why 4 times the points at stake in one game? Sure, you defeat more opponents if you win, but its the same map and the same mechanics and you have disadvantages beyond the advantages: Fewer space on map, more luck regarding Ticket drawing AND color drawing not to mention the Locos (in europe multiplayer drawing only one loco is dead, dead, dead...).

And it is easy to implement, just a dividing in the calculation, the formula must not changed even for 2 players (dividing by one).

Consider this little change and we will see tops playing multiplayer with their "first" account, abandoning their silly multiplayer accounts...

Bassie's post was correct about the 4 points. He said equally ranked opponents. In a 2 player game to get the full 8 points you have to be about 700 ELO points below your opponent. IF you are equal you get 4 for a win and lose 4 for a loss. IKf you are 90 ELO points higher you lose 5 and win 3, 180 points higher you lose 6 and win 2, and 270 points higher you lose 7 and win 1. So in an equally matched 5 player game if you win you get 16 points because they score as if you play everyone 1 on 1.

Okay thanks Brice, erps, and thekid... I now have made a new thread called Scoring/Ranking and Weird Math Stuff to take this conversation further. If a smart moderator reads this perhaps they can link that thread here.

Back to the wishlist, I still would like to see my scores associated to the maps I played on each game as well as players being ranked overall (all maps) as well as based on specific maps... like who is the best Switzerland player?

Then I would also like to see a South America version come out in a board version and online version... either that or SouthEast Asia... those would make good maps.

I am relatively new, but I have a couple of suggestions (I started with more, but read the thread, and eliminated the duplicates).

i) a third category for open/close. I realize that open games also open things for cheaters, but I learn so much from watching the tops play, and I assume they are tolerant of being watched so long as they are safe. Why not have partially open, where you can see the board, but not the hand/tickets. This third party perspective would be fascinating, and I don't need to be looking over the shoulder of a player. At the end, I would be able to see the board and have the tickets revealed, and it would be good practice to try to guess what lines people are going for. This would probably require a different final screen from the competitor&#8217;s screen, but if the coders have nothing better to do &#8230; If it is onerous to have a third option, you could just make every game opened by a 1400+ player be observable only in the third party manner (that seems to be about the level at which people get paranoid). You would still need the current open option to help the newbies understand, but the interface can be learned by looking at any game.

ii) a back room. In Vegas they have the main floor open to everyone, but they have a back room for the high rollers. In the lobby I overheard Anu_ say that he(?) never opened games and he waited for a 1400+ player. All this to avoid a game where you could win a pittance and risk 7+ along with the spent time (five minutes if they are speedy, half an hour if they are slow). It is tedious to wait for a good player, and you have to click in so quickly when the europeans are awake that you sometimes end up in the wrong room (e.g. when the game you were clicking on disappears, and instead of a USA-2, you are in a Europe-4 and the host hits 'go' before you can leave). By the way, I am unworthy of such an honor, but couldn't there be a back room where only 1500+ players would be allowed. They can still wander onto the main floor, and many will when it is quieter, to get a game.

Great game, so simple and yet I'm still learning, still changing my methods.

There really needs to be a function in the game history to show what games are played unrated and what games are rated. Even some sort of symbol by the unrated games would do. This would eliminate a way to cheat (and not be caught), as well as really help the folks who do the multi-player ranking because tag team games would be obvious. I have mentioned this before, but just wanted to formally put it here since DoW is done with the PC update. Perhaps there will be time.

Yes, that's what you DOW boys said so. But I've won my share of Royal Rumbles (5 player games) and Í have NEVER received 32 points for them! As a matter of fact; I never gotten 24 points for winning a Battle Royal (again: 4 player games) either.

Of course, 32 is the difference between 1st and 5th place! So, if you got 10 points for 1st place, you know that you would have lost 22 points by making 5th.
(read the fomula, it really is not very difficult )

There really needs to be a function in the game history to show what games are played unrated and what games are rated. Even some sort of symbol by the unrated games would do. This would eliminate a way to cheat (and not be caught), as well as really help the folks who do the multi-player ranking because tag team games would be obvious. I have mentioned this before, but just wanted to formally put it here since DoW is done with the PC update. Perhaps there will be time.

Yes, that's what you DOW boys said so. But I've won my share of Royal Rumbles (5 player games) and Í have NEVER received 32 points for them! As a matter of fact; I never gotten 24 points for winning a Battle Royal (again: 4 player games) either.

What's up with that, Mr. Brice?

D.I.S.

Peter, to get the full 8 pts per person you would need to play 4 other people rated at least 400 points (I think??) higher than you. As a 1500+ player, this is impossible for you. I haven't received 8 pts for winning a game since I was a n00b.

I didn't see it mentioned in a search, but has anyone considered LAN code for this game? I know I can play with my family by all of us going online and using the DOW servers (which I did today), but sometimes they seem pretty slow, almost to the point of the game freezing between turns. Pretty frustrating at times. If implemented, maybe we could purchase some sort of code to support the developer?

It is great to know that new features are coming!! Brice, I want to again put in the forefront of this thread the importance of modifying the 'observe' function so that you cannot see a player's cards or tickets. It is possible to watch a game and learn plenty without knowing this (especially since you see the tickets after), and it would make our gaming experience so much more enjoyable to know that we can play or observe anyone and not have to worry about cheating. I know most of the community wouldn't, but there are bad apples in every bunch it seems, so why give them the opportunity?

I hope you are planning this feature either at this point or sometime in the future.

I suspect Brice is probably aware of this. But also I bet it is probably pretty low on the list of priorities of things to do as well.

Of course reminding him might bump it up a little..but not much, considering what other items are on his plate.

Cab

Hey, I could be wrong on this, but I have a feeling that somewhere down the road a big release is coming to the online game. I think that's the reason they started this thread in the first place. So, if they are changing lots of things already anyway, my guess it probably would be easy to take away the ability to view cards and tickets. This is a no-brainer (and something I think they have been intending all along but just haven't got around to yet), and I think it would be a wonderful thing to have before Nations Cup 2 starts in September.

I have a strange source of tension in TTR.... that moment when I try to click on a game. Am I going to be quick enough to click on the right game, or is it going to ziggy up or down at the last instant, and I'll by accident click on--god forbid--a game with the Europe map? It's almost unbearable. And on those occasions when you beam down on the wrong planet, and you have to figure out on the fly those crazy Switzerland rules, and you're trying to get away from that monster coming after you but you can't really run...

An expansion deck of tickets with at least 6 more (12 preferred) long routes, and more short tickets; there should be no duplicates with the original deck.

Ability to buy spare parts... I've got my purple Krylon, but due to players favorite colors, I need to keep all 5 extant colors, and need purple to please the wife.... My boardgames group includes people who like blue, red, yellow, green, black, and purple. I'm not averse to buying a set of spares... but it shouldn't be a nightmare to do so.

An expansion map of the USA in TTRE rules level (Stations, bridges and Tunnels)

For the electronic edition:

How about a separate lobby or a filter for TTR/TTRE. I don't care for the original, but love TTRE, and don't want to see the TTR(USA) games. I only play the USA map by accident.

I'd like to see the ability to start a game WITHOUT the required number of players disabled.

In other words, If a player starts a 4 player game and there are 3 of us in the room, the person who started a game shouldn't be able to just begin until the 4th person has joined.

... Or at least, they shouldn't be able to begin without agreement from all other players. I think a simple pop-up box with something like "player #1 would like to begin without the required number of players - if you agree, press START now"

If all other players don't press start, then you continue to wait.

a few times now, I have joined 4 player games, just to have the first person begin the game early - If I wanted to play a 3 player game, I would have joined one.

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but I couldn't see it in this thread.

Would it be possible for the colour of your trains to be the same every time you play? eg. Everytime I started a game my trains appeared green.

That way I won't forget which are my colour trains. I imagine that it would be easy to program. Just make everyone's trains appear green to themselves, and have the other players trains appear in any of the other colours.

I guess it's a little boring, but it might save me losing some of those midnight games because I forget what colour I was.

This is actually a suggestion for the PC/MAC game, to bring it into line with the online game.

The number which is most important to us in the online game is ELO-score (which determines rank). The established player's list is ranked by ELO-score. This is the magic number for the online game, the one that motivates us to greater deeds.

The number which is most important to the PC/MAC game is game-score. The high score list shows the best game scores you have achieved. This is the magic number for the PC/MAC game, the one that motivates us to different greater deeds.

What is the difference? Maximizing game score makes you hate the long-bot. How many people stop choosing "Herr Doktor" because he lowers your game score? It also makes you hate blocking, which typically lowers everyone's game score. It turns people into ticket-fiend automatons, who prefer the two person game simply because it allows you to draw more tickets without having to worry about the opposition. It makes you want your opponents to be weak, and to have them interfere with you as little as possible. Winning is not that important when what you really want is to ring up over 200 points.

This clash of magic numbers causes a rift in the online comunity.

What I suggest is giving the PC/Mac game a version of the ELO-score. By now you have long-term data on the bots, and can give them a reasonable ELO score. Once the players get interested in how good they are vis a vis the ELO score, they will be better equipped to handle the online version. They will also clamor for long-bot, since long-bot will be worth more. In fact, they will clamor for a whole new line of über-bots. The players will learn the value of defense, and they will not go through the culture clash that is present now.

oh, and change the observation status so that the cards and tickets are not shown.

Just a silly little thing, but could you add the ability to sort your buddies? I kind of added people piecemeal, but now the list is long enough that I'd like to move some names up, and cluster others. I suppose you could also add the sort feature to the ignore list, but it hardly seems necessary.

Just a silly little thing, but could you add the ability to sort your buddies?

You mean inconditionnaly sorting by increasing alphabetical order ?
That should be quite easy to do...

Not exactly. I meant a user-ordered list. This way the people I want to keep closest track of could be at the top. Also, since I often use the buddy list to find games to observe, a direct 'observe game' button in the buddy list would be nice.

We originally got this account for my son (Dewey), but he lost interest and I pounced on it, and have been hooked. He has regained interest, so we'll get him his own account, but Dewey and I will typically be using the same computer. What I would like is a simpler account switching mechanism. I am worried that he will just log on as me through the current cookie setup (fine young lad, but not quite 9). I suppose I could stick with the browser version, and let him use the PC/Mac version, but he has also been looking at Gang of Four, which you can't access through the PC/Mac thingy (and I use the swiss map, and, though older, am just as forgetful as my son). Could you do a workaround, perhaps a choice-screen I could link to or a button in the PC/Mac game for those of us who have multiple users in the same household?

Thanks,

dewey (well actually Dewey's father, but I've gotten used to the screen name)

Using a link to find a rating is second rate, at best. Player ratings should appear right next to their name when they enter a game.

There should also be an option to allow observation without seeing cards and tix.

Other nice amenities would include Create Game options to limit players by score or rating.

Yes, you can state your desires in the game title but that does not prevent players who do not qualify from joining anyway. Combined with the lack of in game portrayals of scores/ratings, this becomes downright annoying.

Change the guest system completely. Instead of allowing guests to play forever and forcing paying members to subsidize their play, allow guests the ability to play - and start - x number of games themselves - say 100 games, after which their account is locked out unless they subscribe. Combine that with a Create Game ability for paying members to exclude guests.

(yes, they could simply create another guest account and get another 100 games - but some would desire to play rated players and would subscribe so they could; a strong membership incentive currently not in place.)

Such changes would allow prospective subscribers an opportunity to expose themselves to the world of TTR but would also help shift them from guest status to member status.

Include a family membership option. For say, 3 times the price of one membership, you could purchase 5 accounts. This may seem like bad business but would actually result in more paying members overall.

Often when I get dropped from a game, I can start a new session and then sit in the lobby watching the game list and waiting for the server to recgonize the drop and replace me with a bot. Then I can rejoin. However, since the list is only updated ever 5 sec or so, the other player can make multiple moves before I can make it back.

Is there some way to allow one to rejoin a game that is yours without waiting for the timeout? It could sense the same player id and allow the rejoin. That way, if a player is dropped, there is a chance to get back in the game even before the bot takes over (and other player makes a few moves).

'course it's been awhile since I've been dropped (thanks DOW for fixing the chat bug), but usually I had to go FIND my game in the one playing. I think maybe once the rejoin button was available for me.

My desired add ons are additional tickets for TTR:E, and a deck of KEM style plastic cards. (My KEM playing cards are 30 years old, and just like new! and they have over a thousand games of pinochle on them...)

Just the train deck needs be KEM... though a full KEM set for TTRE would be nice.

But yes, I feel an alternate tickets deck would probably be a good thing for any of them... full second set.

I would like to see the European boardgame get a variant set during WWI or WWII where you can only build (and move supplies) behind your lines. But, those lines keep shifting. Plus, you can sneak behind the lines and sabotage (blow up) the other players' lines. Kind of mixing TtR with some world war and spy intrigue.

i hadnt read this thread for a while, but just finished (again!) and wanted to THANKS TO DOW for actioning some the suggestions people have made here.

the players actually have a influence on the future of the game!

thats really cool.

another suggestion - there should be a lanyard/wristband(sweatband) giftpack that comes with the pc game when you order it online. everybody needs swag... that would be bangin'! at the very least i would be proud to have some TTR softgoods...

With the new rankings, I would like easier access to a page where I can see all of my rankings at once. There already is such a page, called User Information, and I can get to mine by going to the forum, finding one of my posts and clicking on my name, or by going to My Account --> Scores and Ranks, clicking on an opponent's name, getting their user information page, going to their history, finding my name and clicking on it, or by going to Find Other Players on the community page, typing a starting string for my login, finding my login and clicking on it. I suppose I could bookmark the page, but ...

Could you add a header under My Account which goes direct to User Information?

another suggestion - in forums i would like the ability to post polls. in other forums i use, there is this feature so that you can make a list of up to ten items and tally a running vote on the list. you know what i mean? it would be handy from time to time.